SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 3

Refugee Protection for Women Victims of Gender-Based Violence: An Analysis of the Case C-621/21 of the Court of Justice of the European Union

CİNSİYETE DAYALI ŞİDDET MAĞDURU KADINLARIN MÜLTECİ KORUMASINDAN FAYDALANMASI: AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ ADALET DİVANI’NIN C-621/21 SAYILI KARARI ÜZERİNDEN BİR İNCELEME

Zeynep Derya Tarman(KOÇ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2574-8643
Meltem Ece Oba(KOC UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5492-7352
Pages
89–134
Publication Date
2026-05-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ultimately, the reflection of the Court’s evaluations on the outcome of the subsequent cases and the current European asylum policies will be discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision dated January 16, 2024 and numbered C-621/21, Predstavitelstvo na Varhovnia komisar na Organizatsiyata na obedinenite natsii za bezhantsite v Bulgaria, granted an important preliminary ruling regarding the international protection of women who are victims of gender-based violence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this decision the refugee and subsidiary protection statuses within the framework of European Union asylum law is interpreted in a gender-sensitive approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ultimately, the reflection of the Court’s evaluations on the outcome of the subsequent cases and the current European asylum policies will be discussed.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Cinsiyete Dayalı Şiddet · Mülteci · İkincil Koruma

Abstract

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision dated January 16, 2024 and numbered C-621/21, Predstavitelstvo na Varhovnia komisar na Organizatsiyata na obedinenite natsii za bezhantsite v Bulgaria, granted an important preliminary ruling regarding the international protection of women who are victims of gender-based violence. In this decision the refugee and subsidiary protection statuses within the framework of European Union asylum law is interpreted in a gender-sensitive approach. This article will examine the Court’s evaluations in the said decision. Accordingly, the first section shall cover some introductory remarks on the EU asylum law and pieces of legislation relevant to the case at hand. Next, the facts of the case and the questions referred to the CJEU by the referring member state court will set forth in detail. Following this, the Court’s assessments shall be examined. Accordingly, the CJEU’s reasoning regarding the gender dimension of persecution within the refugee definition as well discussions on encompassing women as members ‘belonging to a particular social group’ will be explained. Further, the Court’s assessments regarding the states’ duty to protect victims against persecution caused by non-state actors will be examined. The discussions in the decision regarding the risk of a serious harm within the framework of subsidiary protection will be discussed in the context of gender-based violence. Ultimately, the reflection of the Court’s evaluations on the outcome of the subsequent cases and the current European asylum policies will be discussed.

Özet

Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı Büyük Dairesi’nin 16 Ocak 2024 tarihli ve C-621/21 sayılı Predstavitelstvo na Varhovnia komisar na Organizatsiyata na obedinenite natsii za bezhantsite v Bulgaria kararı cinsiyete dayalı şiddet mağduru kadınların uluslararası korumadan faydalanabilmesi yönünde önemli bir ön karardır. Kararda, Avrupa Birliği iltica hukukunda mülteci ve ikincil korumaya ilişkin tanımlar kapsamında aranan kriterler cinsiyete duyarlı biçimde yorumlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu karar incelenecektir. Bu kapsamda öncelikle, AB iltica hukukuna ilişkin temel açıklamalara ve karara konu olay ile Divan’a yöneltilen hukuki meselelere yer verilecektir. Ardından kararda yer alan değerlendirmeler kapsamında Avrupa Birliği iltica hukuku bağlamında cinsiyete dayalı şiddetin bir zulüm sebebi teşkil edip etmediği, kadın olmanın mülteci koruması bağlamında belirli bir toplumsal gruba mensubiyet koşulunu sağlayıp sağlamadığı meseleleri ele alınacaktır. Bunu takiben, devlet dışı aktörlerin neden olduğu zulüm karşısında devletin koruma yükümlülüğü hakkındaki değerlendirmeler incelenecektir. Son olarak, cinsiyete dayalı şiddetin ikincil koruma bağlamında aranan ciddi zarar görme riski kapsamına girip girmediğine değinilecektir. Sonuçta, kararın AB iltica politikalarındaki güncel yaklaşım ve içtihat üzerindeki etkisi tartışılacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tarman, Z. D., Oba, M. E. (2026). Refugee Protection for Women Victims of Gender-Based Violence: An Analysis of the Case C-621/21 of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 3, 89–134. https://doi.org/10.32957/hacettepehdf.1864354

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Altıparmak Özlem. “Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı'nın WS Kararı Işığında Devletin Aile İçi Şiddet Mağdurlarını Korumamasının Mülteci Hukuku Açısından Sonuçları.” İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 1, sy. 1 (2025): 25-42.
  2. Büyükyılmaz Kezban. “Avrupa Birliği’nde Sığınma Mevzuatı.” Karabük Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 4, sy. 1 (2024): 78-97.
  3. Cheikh Ali Hana and et. al. “Gender Related Asylum Claims in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Law, Policies and Practice focusing on Women in Nine EU Member States” (European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights And Constitutional Affairs, 2012).
  4. Crawley Heaven. “Gender, Persecution and the Concept of Politics in the Asylum Determination Process.” Forced Migration Review 9 (2000): 17-20.
  5. De Vido Sara and Möschel Mathias. “WS: A turning point for women’s rights?” Common Market Law Review 61, (2024): 1661-1682.
  6. de Vido Sara ve Möschel Mathias. “WS: A turning point for women’s rights?.” Common Market Law Review 61, (2024):1672.
  7. Ekşi Nuray. “2011/95/AB Sayılı Vasıf Yönergesi’nin 17(1)(B). Maddesi Uyarınca İkincil Koruma Statüsü Haricinde Tutma Sebebi Olan “Ciddi Suç İşlenmesi” Kavramının Yorumuna İlişkin Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı’nın 13 Eylül 2018 Tarihli Kararının Tercümesi ve Değerlendirilmesi” Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 25, sy. 2 (2019): 757-780.
  8. Ertuna Lagrand Türkan. “Beyond Opuz v. Turkey: The CJEU's Judgment in WS and the Refugee Law Consequences of the State's Failure to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence.” Strasbourg Observers Blog, son güncelleme Şubat 20, 2024. Erişim: 21 Aralık 2025. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2024/02/20/beyond-opuz-v-turkey-the-cjeus-judgment-in-ws-and-the-refugee-law-consequences-of-the-states-failure-to-protect-victims-of-domestic-violence/.
  9. European Commission. Pact on Migration and Asylum.” son güncelleme Mayıs, 21, 2024. Erişim: 25 Aralık 2025. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en.
  10. European Council of the European Union, “A New Asylum and Migration Management Regulation.” son güncelleme 25 Şubat 2025. Erişim: 5 Ocak 2026. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/asylum-migration-management/.
  11. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), ECRE Comments On The Qualification Regulation (EU) 2024/1347, son güncelleme Aralık 2025, erişim tarihi 15 Mart 2026, https://ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ECRE-Comments_Qualification-Regulation.pdf.
  12. Eurorupean Parliament. “Reform of the Qualification Directive: Briefing.” Erişim: 25 Aralık 2025.
  13. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2017)603914.
  14. Foster Michelle. “Why We Are Not There Yet: The Particular Challenge of ‘Particular Social Group.’” in Gender in Refugee Law: From the Margins to the Centre, ed, Efrat Arbel, Catherine Dauvergne and Jenni Millbank. Routledge, 2014.
  15. Freedman Jane. “The Uses and Abuses of ‘Vulnerability’ in EU Asylum and Refugee Protection: Protecting Women or Reducing Autonomy?.” ed., Jane Freedman and Glenda Santana de Andrade. Elgar, 2018: 251-266.
  16. Göçmen İlke. “Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı.” Avrupa Birliği Tarihçe, Teoriler, Kurumlar ve Politikalar içinde haz. Belgin Akçay ve İlke Göçmen Seçkin Yayınları, 2023. (“Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı”)
  17. Göçmen İlke. Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Işığında Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye Göç Hukuku Seçkin Yayınları, 2015.
  18. Güneş Ahmet M. “Avrupa Birliği Yönergelerinin Doğrudan Etkisi.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 58, sy. 2, (2009): 281-318.
  19. Heyman Michael G. “Asylum, Social Group Membership and the Non-State Actor: The Challenge of Domestic Violence.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 36 (2003): 767-814.
  20. İneli Ciğer Meltem. “Silahlı Çatışma Durumlarında Ayrım Gözetmeyen Şiddet Hareketlerinden Kaçan Kişilerin Avrupa Birliği Hukuku ve Türk Hukukunda İkincil Korunması.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 20, sy. 1 (2018): 199-237.
  21. Jakulevičienė Lyra and Laurynas Biekša. “Trends in the Qualification of Asylum Claims Related to Gender-Based Violence under International and European Law.” The International Journal of Human Rights 26, sy. 5, (2022): 833-855.
  22. Karagözoğlu Ceren ve Partalcı Rumeysa. “Cinsiyet Temelli Zulme Karşı Uluslararası Hukukta ve Türk Hukukunda Sağlanan Koruma Statüleri.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 44, sy. 2 (2024): 319-376.
  23. Kübek Gesa ve Bornemann Jonas. “International Law as a Trailblazer for a Gender-Sensitive Refugee System in the EU. The Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C-621/21, Women who are Victims of Domestic Violence.”
  24. European Law Blogpost, son güncelleme: Haziran 2024, erişim: 20 Mart 2026 https://www.europeanlawblog.eu/pub/oa98cmvt/release/1.
  25. le Bellec Amandine. “LGBTIQ Recognition in Asylum Policies: Vulnerability as a Disabling Entitlement” in States and the Making of Others: Perspectives on Social State Institutions and Othering in Southern Africa and Western Europe, ed., Jeanne Bouyat, Amandine Le Bellec, and Lucas Puygrenier, (Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024): 229–252.
  26. Loxa Alezini. “International Human Rights Commitments to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence: Refugee Recognition as the First Step for an Integrated Approach Under EU Law in Case C-621/21, Intervyuirasht Organ Na DAB Pri MS (Women Victims of Domestic Violence)” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 31, sy. 4, (2024): 535-550.
  27. MacIntosh Constance. “When ‘Feminist Beliefs’ Became Credible as ‘Political Opinions’: Returning to a Key Moment in Canadian Refugee Law.” Canada Journal of Women an Law 17 (2005): 135-150.
  28. Mullally Siobhán. “Domestic Violence Asylum Claims and Recent Developments In International Human Rights Law: A Progress Narrative?” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60, sy. 2 (2011): 459-484.
  29. Mullally Siobhán. “Gender Asylum Law: Providing Transformative Remedies?” in Contemporary Issues in Refugee Law, ed, Satvinder Singh Juss and Colin Harvey, (Edward Elgar, 2013): 196–224.
  30. Mullally, Siobhán. ‘Domestic Violence Asylum Claims And Recent Developments In International Human Rights Law: A Progress Narrative?’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60, sy. 2, (2011): 459-484.
  31. Olmedo Alberca Ana and et. al. Case Study: The Evolution of Migration and Asylum Policy in the EU: From the Common European Asylum System to the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, /ESADE-Geo Centre for Global Economy and Geopolitics, 2023-2024), Erişim Tarihi: Aralık 25, 2025, https://www.esade.edu/faculty-research/sites/default/files/publicacion/pdf/202409/The%20evolution%20of%20migration%20and%20asylum%20policy%20in%20the%20EU.pdf.
  32. Ontorio Human Rights Commission, “Appendix B: Glossary for understanding gender identity and expression.” Policy on preventing discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression, erişim tarihi 20 Mart 2026, https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/book/export/html/11202.
  33. Özkan Işıl. Avrupa Birliği Kamu Hukuku (Brexit Sonrası Değişikliklerle). Seçkin Yayınları, 2022.
  34. Öztürk Neva Övünç. Mültecinin Hukuki Statüsünün Belirlenmesi Seçkin Yayınları, 2015.
  35. Parlak Türkan Melis. Avrupa Birliği Göç Hukuku Reformunda Düzensiz Göçmenlerin Statüleri, Seçkin Yayınları, 2022.
  36. Peers Steve. “The New EU Asylum Laws, part 1: the Qualification Regulation” EU Law Anaylsis, son güncelleme 30 Aralık 2023, erişim tarihi 10.12.2025, https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-new-eu-asylum-laws-part-1.html.
  37. Peers Steve. “The New EU Asylum Laws: taking rights half-seriously.” Yearbook of European Law 43 (2024): 113–183. (“Taking Rights Half Seriously”)
  38. Querton Christel. “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Interpreting ‘Particular Social Group’ In the European Union Christel Querton.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 71 (2022): 425-451.
  39. Reilly Niamh, Sahraoui Nina ve McGarry Orla. “Exclusion, Minimization, Inaction: A Critical Review of Ireland’s Policy Response to Gender-Based Violence as it Affects Migrant Women.” Frontiers in Human Dynamics 3 (2021): 1–17.
  40. Safi Sibel. Mülteci Hukukunda Belli Bir Sosyal Gruba Aidiyet Kriteri ve ‘Aile İçi Şiddet’ Bağlamında AB Adalet Divanının WS Bulgaristan Kararı (C-621/21, WS v. Intervyuirasht organ na DAB pri MS).” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 27, sy. 1, (2025): 51-99.
  41. Steininger Silvia. “The CJEU's Feminist Turn?: Gender-based Persecution as a Ground for Protection.” VerfassungsBlog, son güncelleme Şubat 20, 2024. Erişim: 25 Aralık 2025. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-cjeus-feminist-turn/.
  42. T.C. Başbakanlık Avrupa Birliği Genel Sekreterliği. “Avrupa Birliği Antlaşması ve Avrupa Birliği’nin İşleyişi Hakkında Antlaşma.” son güncelleme 2011. Erişim: 25 Aralık 2025.
  43. https://acikerisim.tbmm.gov.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/4bfac472-5470-4878-aaa5-014156b03ed0/content.
  44. Tan Nicolas Feith and İneli Ciğer Meltem. ‘Group-based Protection of Afghan Women and Girls under the 1951 Refugee Convention’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 72, sy. 3 (2023): 793-817.
  45. Taşkın Damla ve Orallı Levent Ersin. “Avrupa’da Yeni Bir Sistem: Avrupa Birliği Göç ve İltica Paktı.” TESAM Akademi Dergisi 12, sy. 1 (2025): 67-95.
  46. Taylor Amanda. “The CJEU and Its Interaction with International Law in the Qualification Directive: A Calculated Selectivity?.” European Database of Asylum Law, son güncelleme Şubat, 12 2015. Erişim 17 Aralık 2025, https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/journal/cjeu-and-its-interaction-international-law-qualification-directive-calculated-selectivity.
  47. United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees. “Guidelines on International Protection No.2: “Membership of a Particular Social Group” within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees” (HCR/GIP/02/02). Erişim Tarihi: 17.12.2025, https://www.unhcr.org/media/guidelines-international-protection-no-2-membership-particular-social-group-within-context.
  48. Warin Catherine. “Gender in European Union Asylum Law: The Istanbul Convention as a Game Changer?” International Journal of Refugee Law 36, sy. 1-2 (2024): 93-105.